BHAITI SUREN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal from jail under Sec. 383, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ['the Code' and/or 'the CrPC', for short] is directed against a Judgment and Order dtd. 21/12/2021 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu ['the trial court', for short] in New Sessions Case no. 18 of 2018 [Old Sessions Case no. 40 of 2014], which arose out of Bokajan Police Station Case no. 131/2013 and corresponding G.R. Case no. 729/2013. In the trial, the accusedappellant faced a charge of patricide and after the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong finding him guilty for committing the murder of his father, Sukhu Sureng under Sec. 300, Indian Penal Code [IPC], had sentenced the accusedappellant under Sec. 302, IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 1 [one] year.

(2.) We have heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms. M. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent State.

(3.) Mr. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant has submitted, at first, that though at the time of submission of the charge-sheet, the prosecution listed Sakuntala Suren, the wife of the deceased and the mother of the accused, as an eye-witness but in the course of trial, the prosecution did not examine Sakuntala Suren as a witness as she, in the meantime, had become unable to testify due to her paralytic condition and loss of speech. As a result, the prosecution sought to prove the charge of patricide against the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Mr. Ahmed has submitted that there were many missing links in the prosecution story and the vital circumstance were not proved by credible evidence. He has contended that the medical evidence is deficient to establish that the death of the deceased was a homicidal one. He has submitted that most of the witnesses, other than the Autopsy Doctor and the I.O., were witnesses who had reached the place of occurrence much after the alleged incident which occurred in the night intervening 24/9/2013 and 25/9/2013. Contending as above, Mr. Ahmed has submitted that in view of failure on the part of the prosecution to establish its case, the accused was not required to provide any explanation. Yet, the accused had provided an explanation which, according to Mr. Ahmed, was a plausible and acceptable one. But the learned trial court proceeded to draw inference on the basis of suspicions and conjectures from various circumstances to reach a finding of guilt against the accused. Mr. Ahmed has, thus, contended that in view of the missing links in the chain the benefit should go to the accused.